collegiumfandomcom-20200214-history
Politics
Both Plato and Aristotle begin their political philosophy by establishing that humans are a group animal and that, in order to create a “just” human being, we must create a “just” political organization of society. 9 Aristotle asserts that “everywhere and always humans are found in groups, and only a god or beast lives alone.” 10 Given that humans are group animals—“homo politicus”—attempting to define the best form of political organization for the human group became their mission. Plato and Aristotle described and criticized all the known forms of government. Since humans could be ruled by the one, the few, or the many, they analyzed: monarchy and dictatorship, aristocracy and oligarchy, democracy of the middle-class majority, and democracy of the poor. Plato and Aristotle rejected the traditional monarchies of Persia and Assyria, observing that the citizens became slave-like subjects and servile and lost their dignity. And they rejected tyranny even more, with Plato describing how dictators act out hideous, violent scenarios, which are usually hidden away in the world of our dreams, but which burst forth when a leader’s power is unconstrained by laws. 12 Aristotle stated: when the law rules, God and reason rule. “When a man rules, we add the character of the beast.” 13— Ronald M Glassman, pub. June 2017 People go funny in the head when talking about politics. The evolutionary reasons for this are so obvious as to be worth belaboring: In the ancestral environment, politics was a matter of life and death. And sex, and wealth, and allies, and reputation... When, today, you get into an argument about whether "we" ought to raise the minimum wage, you're executing adaptations for an ancestral environment where being on the wrong side of the argument could get you killed. Being on the right side of the argument could let you kill your hated rival! If you want to make a point about science, or rationality, then my advice is to not choose a domain from contemporary politics if you can possibly avoid it. If your point is inherently about politics, then talk about Louis XVI during the French Revolution. Politics is an important domain to which we should individually apply our rationality—but it's a terrible domain in which to >learn< rationality, or discuss rationality, unless all the discussants are already rational. Politics is an extension of war by other means. Arguments are soldiers. Once you know which side you're on, you must support all arguments of that side, and attack all arguments that appear to favor the enemy side; otherwise it's like stabbing your soldiers in the back—providing aid and comfort to the enemy. People who would be level-headed about evenhandedly weighing all sides of an issue in their professional life as scientists, can suddenly turn into slogan-chanting zombies when there's a Blue or Green position on an issue. Types * Autonomism Anarchism * Liberal Democracy * Techno-commercialist neoreaction * Neoabsolutism. (https://neoabsolutism.wordpress.com r.18jul19) * Journal of Neoabsolutism (https://thejournalofneoabsolutism.wordpress.com r.18jul19) Rhizomata * Extreme/Extremist Politics; The Middle Class; Social Justice; Liberalism; Conservatism * Trauma-manipulating politics; Reaction; Leftism; Left and Right; Psychology and politics * Mental health and politics; Psychopolitics; * Political terms; Political Correctness; Political science; Political rationalisation